The Samaritan canon consists of the Pentateuch alone. This restricted
collection is owing to the fact, that when the Samaritans separated from
the Jews and began their worship on Gerizim, no more than the Mosaic
writings had been invested by Ezra with canonical dignity. The hostile
feeling between the rivals hindered the reception of books subsequently
canonized. The idea of their having the oldest and most sacred part in its
entirety satisfied their spiritual wants. Some have thought that the
Sadducees, who already existed as a party before the Maccabean period,
agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Pentateuch; yet this
is doubtful. It is true that the Samaritans themselves say so;(79) and
that some of the church fathers, Origen, Jerome, and others agree; but
little reliance can be put on the statement. The latter, perhaps,
confounded the Samaritans and Sadducces. It is also noteworthy that Christ
in refuting the Sadducees appeals to the Pentateuch alone; yet the
conclusion, that he did so because of their admitting no more than that
portion does not follow.
The Alexandrian canon differed from the Palestinian. The Greek translation
commonly called the Septuagint contains some later productions which the
Palestinian Jews did not adopt, not only from their aversion to Greek
literature generally, but also from the recent origin of the books,
perhaps also their want of prophetic sanction. The closing line of the
third part in the Alexandrian canon was more or less fluctuating—capable
of admitting recent writings appearing under the garb of old names and
histories, of embracing religious subjects; while the Palestinian
collection was pretty well determined, and all but finally settled. The
judgment of the Alexandrians was freer than that of their brethren in the
mother country. They had even separated in a measure from the latter, by
erecting a temple at Leontopolis; and their enlargement of the canon was
another step of divergence. Nor had they the criterion of language for the
separation of canonical and uncanonical; both classes were before them in
the same tongue. The enlarged canon was not formally sanctioned; it had
not the approval of the Sanhedrim; yet it was to the Alexandrians what the
Palestinian one was to the Palestinians. If Jews who were not well
acquainted with Hebrew, used the apocryphal and canonical books alike, it
was a matter of feeling and custom; and if those who knew the old language
better, adhered to the canonical more closely, it was a matter of
tradition and language. The former set little value on the prevalent
consciousness of the race that the spirit of prophecy was extinct; their
view of the Spirit’s operation was larger. The latter clung to the past
with all the more tenacity that the old life of the nation had
degenerated.
The Alexandrian Jews opened their minds to Greek culture and philosophy,
appropriating new ideas, and explaining their Scriptures in accordance
with wider conceptions of the divine presence; though such adaptation
turned aside the original sense. Consciously or unconsciously they were
preparing Judaism in some degree to be the religion of humanity. But the
Rabbins shut out those enlarging influences, confining their religion
within the narrow traditions of one people. The process by which they
conserved the old belief helped to quench its spirit, so that it became an
antique skeleton, powerless beside the new civilization which had followed
the wake of Alexander’s conquests. Rabbinical Judaism proved its
incapacity for regenerating the world; having no affinity for the
philosophy of second causes, or for the exercise of reason beneath the
love of a Father who sees with equal eye as God of all. Its isolation
nourished a sectarian tendency. Tradition, having no creative power like
revelation, had taken the place of it; and it could not ward off the
senility of Judaism; for its creations are but feeble echoes of prophetic
utterances, weak imitations of poetic inspiration or of fresh wisdom. They
are of the understanding rather than the reason. The tradition which
Geiger describes as the life-giving soul of Judaism—the daughter of
revelation, enjoying the same rights with her mother—a spiritual power
that continues ever to work—an emanation from the divine Spirit—is not,
indeed, the thing which has stiffened Judaism into Rabbinism; but neither
is it tradition proper; it is reason working upon revelation, and moulding
it into a new system. _Such tradition_ serves but to show the inability of
genuine Judaism to assimilate philosophic thought. _Rationalizing_ should
not be styled the operation of tradition.
The truth of these remarks is evident from a comparison of two books,
exemplifying Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism respectively. The Wisdom
of Solomon shows the enlarging effect of Greek philosophy. Overpassing
Jewish particularism, it often approaches Christianity in doctrine and
spirit, so that some(80) have even assumed a Christian origin for it. The
Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach has not the doctrine of immortality. Death
is there an eternal sleep, and retribution takes place in this life. The
Jewish theocracy is the centre of history; Israel the elect people; and
all wisdom is embodied in the law. The writer is shut up within the old
national ideas, and leans upon the writings in which they are expressed.
Thus the Hagiographical canon of Judea, conservative as it is, and purer
in a sense, presents a narrower type than the best specimens of the
Alexandrian one. The genial breath of Aryan culture had not expanded its
Semitism.
The identity of the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons must be abandoned,
notwithstanding the contrary arguments of Eichhorn and Movers. It is said,
indeed, that Philo neither mentions nor quotes the Greek additions; but
neither does he quote several canonical books. According to Eichhorn, no
fewer than eight of the latter are unnoticed by him.(81) Besides, he had
peculiar views of inspiration, and quoted loosely from memory. Believing
as he did in the inspiration of the Greek version as a whole, it is
difficult to think that he made a distinction between the different parts
of it. In one passage he refers to the sacred books of the Therapeutae, a
fanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, as “_laws_, oracles _of prophets, hymns_
and _other books_ by which knowledge and piety are increased and
perfected,”(82) but this presents little information as to the canon of
the Egyptian Jews generally; for it is precarious argumentation to say
with Herbst that they prove a twofold canon. Even if the Alexandrian and
Palestinian canons be identical, we cannot be sure that _the other books_
which the Therapeutae read as holy besides the law, _the prophets and
hymns_, differed from the hagiographa, and so constituted another canon
than the general Egyptian one. It is quite possible that the _hymns_ mean
the Psalms; and _the other books_, the rest of the hagiographa. The
argument for the identity of the two canons deduced from 4 Esdras xiv. 44,
&c., as if the twenty-four open books were distinguished from the other
writings dictated to Ezra, is of no force, because verisimilitude required
that an Egyptian Jew himself must make Ezra conform to the old Palestinian
canon. It is also alleged that the grandson of Jesus Sirach, who
translated his grandfather’s work during his abode in Egypt, knew no
difference between the Hebrew and Greek canon, though he speaks of the
Greek version; but he speaks as a Palestinian, without having occasion to
allude to the difference between the canonical books of the Palestinian
and Egyptian Jews. The latter may have reckoned the apocryphal writings in
the third division; and therefore the translator of Jesus Sirach could
recognize them in the ordinary classification. The mention of _three_
classes is not opposed to their presence in the third. The general use of
an enlarged canon in Egypt cannot be denied, though it was somewhat loose,
not regarded as a completed collection, and without express rabbinical
sanction. If they did not _formally_ recognize a canon of their own, as De
Wette says of them, they had and used one larger than the Palestinian,
without troubling themselves about a _formal_ sanction for it by a body of
Rabbis at Jerusalem or elsewhere. Their canon was not identical with that
of the Palestinians, and all the argumentation founded upon Philo’s
non-quotation of the apocryphal books, fails to prove the contrary. The
very way in which apocryphal are inserted among canonical books in the
Alexandrian canon, shows the equal rank assigned to both. Esdras first and
second succeed the Chronicles; Tobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and
Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach follow Canticles; Baruch succeeds
Jeremiah; Daniel is followed by Susanna and other productions of the same
class; and the whole closes with the three books of Maccabees. Such is the
order in the Vatican MS.
The threefold division of the canon, indicating three stages in its
formation, has continued. Josephus, indeed, gives another, based on the
nature of the separate books, not on MSS. We learn nothing from him of its
history, which is somewhat remarkable, considering that he did not live
two centuries after the last work had been added. The account of the
canon’s final arrangement was evidently unknown to him.